All posts tagged ‘Great Geek Debate’

Console gaming has changed. In fact, one could make an easy case for flat out evolution. With gaming, gamers have evolved as well. Where once the stereotypical gamer was a fat pimple-faced kid in his mom’s basement, hands covered in Cheetos dust and a two-liter of Mountain Dew with a straw nearby, the gamer is now de-evolving as gaming is evolving.

Gamers didn’t always have a stereotype. They were normal kids, skinny kids, fat kids – whatever – just normal. There wasn’t a stigma, there wasn’t a stereotype. Then the really hardcore ones fell into a stereotype that they created. They became unhealthy and pale, shunning physical activity for sitting around gaming. I’m not making any judgments on that fact; I’m a gamer, but always had a healthy balance of gaming and physical activity. Even now, in my 30s, I game regularly – after I spend time at the gym.

So when I say de-evolution, I mean that the idea of gamers and their physical stereotypes are reverting to their earlier stage. Gaming has evolved, and through that evolution physical activity has re-entered the sphere of gamers and that will change everything.

So what exactly has changed in the past couple years to get gamers off the couch? (And for the purpose of this article, when I say gamers I’m referring to console gamers, as PC gamers are a whole different bunch and the tech I’m talking about doesn’t apply to them at all at this point.) Well, the instruments of play have changed. With the innovative direction taken by the major console systems, gamers are getting active, and getting their families involved as well.

Console gaming has changed. In fact, one could make an easy case for flat out evolution. With gaming, gamers have evolved as well. Where once the stereotypical gamer was a fat pimple-faced kid in his mom’s basement, hands covered in Cheetos dust and a two-liter of Mountain Dew with a straw nearby, the gamer is now de-evolving as gaming is evolving.

Gamers didn’t always have a stereotype. They were normal kids, skinny kids, fat kids – whatever – just normal. There wasn’t a stigma, there wasn’t a stereotype. Then the really hardcore ones fell into a stereotype that they created. They became unhealthy and pale, shunning physical activity for sitting around gaming. I’m not making any judgments on that fact; I’m a gamer, but always had a healthy balance of gaming and physical activity. Even now, in my 30s, I game regularly – after I spend time at the gym.

So when I say de-evolution, I mean that the idea of gamers and their physical stereotypes are reverting to their earlier stage. Gaming has evolved, and through that evolution physical activity has re-entered the sphere of gamers and that will change everything.

So what exactly has changed in the past couple years to get gamers off the couch? (And for the purpose of this article, when I say gamers I’m referring to console gamers, as PC gamers are a whole different bunch and the tech I’m talking about doesn’t apply to them at all at this point.) Well, the instruments of play have changed. With the innovative direction taken by the major console systems, gamers are getting active, and getting their families involved as well.

For the past three years, convention-going geeks have had to choose: Dragon*Con or PAX. Two conventions on opposite ends of the United States, each with its own unique programming, occurring during the same Labor Day weekend. What’s a geek to do?

Dragon*Con (D*C) began as a get-together for users of a local Atlanta bulletin board system to get together and talk about science fiction and games. It grew to host the 1990 Origins International Game Expo and eventually grew to include guests like Michael Moorcock, Richard “Lord British” Garriott, Gary Gygax, and Anne McCaffrey. Now it plays host to everything from Star Trek and Star Wars alum to GWAR and Adult Swim, with some gaming and cosplay thrown in for good measure. It is a celebration of every possible geek pastime, all stuffed into a few city blocks.

The Penny Arcade Expo (PAX) kicked off in 2004 with 1337 pre-registrations and has grown to over 67,000. Its focus: gaming. Music inspired by games, exhibitor booths devoted to new games, after-hours parties centered around games, and entire convention center floors devoted to the playing of games. It’s grown so popular that it can no longer be confined by the west coast, so PAX East and its 52,290 attendees converged on the city of Boston in March, completely overcrowding the Hynes Convention Center. Next year’s venue will, by necessity, be much larger.

Which convention reigns supreme? This year, my wife, Natania Barron, and I decided to split up. Not for good. Just for the weekend. We compared and contrasted. We one-upped each other via text message (when the networks weren’t down). We tried to get to the bottom of the Great Geek Debate: Dragon*Con vs. PAX.

In the annals of time and Science Fiction, no character is more used and recognized than the mad scientist. They have been evil, they have been good and they have (more often than not) been absolutely out of their freaking heads. Crazy as the day is long, these characters have been a constant source of entertainment, weird science and madcap inventions.

So when you hear “mad scientist” what do you think? Do you really think “mad?” Usually, you think of Dr. Frankenstein, the original mad scientist (as far as popular culture, literature & movies are concerned). Dr. Frankenstein is the king of the mad scientist genre, with the tortured but well-intentioned creation of his monster. Tortured because of the anguish he suffered in his devotion to the creation, and well intentioned because he really thought he was doing some good.

That’s the conundrum facing many of the mad scientists today. While they generally have the best of intentions, the chaos they create as a result of those intentions is what ends up classifying them as “mad.” From destroying whole universes, to creating paradoxes in time, to just being a general nuisance to the tri-state area – mad scientists end up getting a bad rap.

In this weeks’ Great Geek Debate, we take a look at some of the most popular ones in geek culture – aside from the obvious Dr. Frankenstein – to determine if they are really mad, or just misunderstood.

Name: Dr. Emmett BrownDisposition: Frantic, forgetful, brilliant but controversial.Claim to Fame: Invented a time machine made from an DMC DeLorean.Analysis:Dr. Brown was looked down upon by society as being a true outcast, a mad scientist trapped in suburban America. His years of experiment (and a bump on the head) resulted in the invention of the “Flux Capacitor.” With this, and a converted DMC DeLorean tuned to run on nuclear power, he created time travel. However, the paradoxes created by time travel were a constant source of frustration for Dr. Brown, eventually leading him to destroy the time machine – but not before building another one.

Dr. Brown’s intentions with the time machine were of the best kind, not evil at all, but even well laid plans can be messed up by terrorists looking for their nuclear materials and a teenager wearing a jacket that resembles a life vest. The best thing for Dr. Brown was getting trapped in the past, where his inventions were actually able to not only do some good, but be appreciated for doing so.Madness Factor: Great Scott! Bananas, but not full coconuts.

If there is one thing that we have learned from television and movies it’s that the Zombipocalypse is inevitable. There will soon come a day that we will be holding up in a mall, fighting off the incoming horde of brain-seeking zombies. With modern entertainment, zombies went from a niche sci-fi creation to a pop culture phenomenon. Zombies have quickly become a staple of modern horror. They scare us with their faces of gore and detached limbs, they make us laugh with their clumsy shuffling and simplistic one-task-oriented view of the world they have been re-animated into.

Originating in ancient voodoo rituals in Haiti and Africa, zombies worked their way into the American culture through film as early as 1932 with White Zombie starring Bela Lugosi. From there, zombies showed up in Plan 9 From Outer Space in the form of a shuffling Tor Johnson then finally in George A. Romero’s 1968 Night of the Living Dead. This film changed the landscape of zombie-centric movie making, though it wouldn’t be until the 2004 remake of his 1978 classic Dawn of the Dead that zombies really sky rocketed into the pop culture mentality, not to mention stopped shuffling and started running. That same year brought us Shaun of the Dead and then, zombies got funny. But this isn’t a post about the history of zombies in movies. This is about the the only major disparity in zombie portrayal in movies and videogames. Some shuffle while others run at a clip that couldn’t be maintained by most marathon runners. So which is it? Which one instills a greater sense of fear deep in the cockles of your heart? The shuffling zombie or the hyper-speed zombie?

Dragging Their Feet for Brains

The inherent fear that the shuffling, slow zombie brings to the discussion is that you have longer to fear for your life. There is nothing quick about the slow-moving zombie that drags one foot across the ground as it makes its way toward you. This, in relation to movies and videogames, gives the viewer more time to focus on the zombie and notice all the sick little details. The disfigured face, the rotting flesh bits hanging off exposed bone and of course the wide open maw, dripping with blood and other disturbing fluids like pus and Crystal Pepsi.

As a society, we’ve always idolized the embodiment of the headstrong cowboy gunslinger anti-hero. From John Wayne’s many iterations of Western sheriffs and outlaws to Clint Eastwood showing us the good, the bad and the ugly — we’ve always adored and admired the lone gunslinger. The outlaw. The take no prisoners — ask no questions — shoot-first outlaw hero. The wise-cracking cowboy as quick with a sideways comment as with a six-shooter. Or laser pistol. As our imaginations turned to space, it was only natural that eventually we’d have our share of space cowboys — in the gunslinger good-at-heart outlaw type. The space cowboy evolved from star-cruising heroes such as Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, who took on strange enemies and toppled space dictators. Where they were closer to the definition of a space pirate, it wasn’t until a certain Enterprise captain came along that we truly got our first glimpse of a space cowboy.

James T. Kirk was brash and emotional. He preferred to fight battles with his fists rather than with words or diplomacy, though knew how to use both when needed. He was a natural-born leader and defied the stereotype of the cowboy loner when he took command of the Enterprise. Kirk took pleasure in doing what any ships’ captain should never do, go straight into battle with only a small posse at his side. The captain’s place is generally at the helm, commanding his troops. Not Kirk, however: Kirk scoffed in the face of danger and laughed in the face of aversion. In the realm of science fiction and geekdom, he was one of the greatest space cowboys. He wasn’t the last, though; he just led the way for two of the greatest. The two that set the tone for this edition of GeekDad’s Great Geek Debate: Han Solo vs. Malcolm Reynolds.

Outlaw in Command

When fellow GeekDad writer Chuck Lawton (whom you can yell at on Twitter if you don’t enjoy this particular debate) suggested I do a Han vs. Mal Great Geek Debate, I wondered how to approach it. Both men have very similar traits and, at this point, are endeared in geek culture and beyond. I chose the path of the lone gunslinger, the cowboy outlaw, in the sense that neither men is a cattle herder (the classic definition of a cowboy), but both men are rule-breakers. Both men have reckless streaks and have no problem conning their way to greater profit and personal gain at the expense of their own lives. They are egotistical and commanding. Han and Mal prefer things be done their way, especially on the ships they command. Each member of their crew serves a purpose – if someone isn’t useful, then they have no business on the ship.

Recently, I was having an argument with a friend about who is the greatest movie or television robot/android. While there are a ton to choose from, the one that left a lasting impression on us was Star Trek: The Next Generation‘s Data. From there we started to compare all of the other robots and androids to Data to see how they would all stack up. Some didn’t compare, some would simply destroy Data in a fight, but what about the human connection? What about Data’s constant striving to become more human? How did that reflect in the other robots and androids? Needless to say, this seemed like a fantastic topic for a Great Geek Debate, so here it is. Data vs. The Rest.

Here’s a look at some (of the many) androids, robots and cyborgs that came before Lt. Commander Data and how Data stacks up to each of them. The main talking points are who would win in a fight (invariable conclusion to such a debate) and the quest for humanity.

Data vs. Gort

Gort stood about 8 feet tall (referring to the original The Day the Earth Stood Still, not the forgettable remake) and arrived on Earth to “preserve the peace.” Part of an interstellar police force, Gort had the power to vaporize anything that posed a threat and according to his buddy Klaatu, “He could destroy the Earth.” That kind of power can’t be ignored on any scale. He’s focused on his mission and is prepared to release destruction on command. Gort cannot be destroyed by modern weapons and only when a particular phrase is uttered does he shut down. (C’mon, you know it.)

Data was often injured in battle, even losing his head on at least one occasion. This created a human vulnerability that endeared him as more than just an android. He wasn’t intentionally destructive; hell, he even kept a pet cat. Data would never stand idly by waiting for a command to destroy a planet. That was Gort’s job. While one could clearly make the argument that Data is the better android, Gort could unleash his laser beam and simply destroy everything. Advantage: Gort